> > > > > > > > > > > > >Same reason creationists try to call creationism a "science" and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >evolution a "religion."
> > > > > > > > > > > > Really, then why did the science community teach for 100's of years the idea
> > > > > > > > > > > > of a static universe which is wrong!

> > > > > > > > > > > Same reason the Christian community taught for 100s of years the idea
> > > > > > > > > > > that the Pope in Rome was the voice of God.

> > > > > > > > > > > They were wrong.

> > > > > > > > > > > Christian evangelicals now know better which is why they are voting
> > > > > > > > > > > for Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
> > > > > > > > > > ya still got nuthin'......

> > > > > > > > > It's up to you to prove trace amounts can never be harmful.  All you

> > > > > > > > I've never claimed that trace amounts can never be harmful in any
> > > > > > > > context whatsoever.

> > > > > > > Eating 1800 kcal of food a day is necessary for life.  If you eat 2000
> > > > > > > kcal a day for decades you will become obese and die.

> > > > > > > Bret Cahill

> > > > > > But what if you eat one one hundredth of one percent of a kilo-calorie
> > > > > > more than 1800? Would it be catastrophic? In how many years? By how
> > > > > > much exactly?

> > > > > > Would you even notice? Would the results be even measurable?

> > > > > > If you are going to use an analogy, make sure your analogy fits the
> > > > > > scenario.

> > > > > Actually it should be one one hundredth of one percent of 1800 kcal.
> > > > > Which amounts to 1800 / 100 = 18 / 100 = .18 kcal.

> > > > Actually the % increase in CO2 is 50% so you would need to be eating
> > > > 3,000 kcal.day.

> > > > Bret Cahill

> > > 50% of trace amounts is trace amounts.

> > OK, you can ingest 50% less polonium than a trace amount.

> > As usual, don't mention my name.

> LOL. I gotcha there, eh? Ya got nuthin'. Check and mate. LOL.